Roger is Zombie Chow

[SRP76]

We have a possible specimen for our virus/infection/nobody lives arguments. In Dawn, we all know that Roger got his calf pretty much chewed off, and then a chain of events wound up with him becoming a zombie and being eliminated by Peter. But I never see anyone talking about his other bite. Before getting the "big one", Roger takes a "minor" bite on the arm. Afterward, his forearm and leg are both bandaged. As time goes by, Roger is never again able to use his leg, Fran talks of infection spreading, yaddayaddayadda. But his arm never again shows any sign of trouble, despite having been directly bitten by a ghoul. So do you think it's possible that a bite can be survived? It's the only "nibble" we ever see, and it doesn't seem to affect Roger. Every single "he's dead, Jim" zombie bite we see is a nice, gaping, flesh-tearing wound. So it could just be the major ones that get you if you get treated.

[sandrock74]

Interesting observation. Here is my take on it; feel free to agree or disagree. The bite on Roger's arm was almost like a small shock to the audience. The bite to his leg was the "drive home" shock to the audience that Roger is, in fact, already dead. The second bite was bigger, bloodier, and got a painful reaction from Roger. There was no mistaking that he was a goner. As far as the severity of the injuries/use of the appendages, leg injuries are always worse than an arm injury as far as being mobile goes. If I get a charlie horse in my calf, I end up hobbling around for an hour or two. It obviously slows me down. It alters the speed of how I go about things. I favor a leg, etc. If I get a bad laceration on an arm, I clean it out, disenfect it, bandage it up, and go about my business. My arm can be in pain/discomfort, but it doesn't affect how well I can get around. I'm still perfectly mobile. I think Roger was doomed from the arm injury, no question. Whenever I watch Dawn with a newbie, when Roger gets the arm bite, they always are shocked, noting that he'll become a zombie. It's the leg bite a moment later that really seems to freak them out. Like any hope they held out for Roger was just tossed out the window. Besides, with the leg injury, Roger was essentially a cripple (riding in the wheelbarrow) and that ratcheted up the tension level. If it were only the arm injury, he'd probably have worked through the pain and it wouldn't have been as tense. That's my take.

[Publius]

Interesting observation. Here is my take on it; feel free to agree or disagree. I think I agree. The bigger leg bite required more care and was more disabling, but the arm bite would have taken him down eventually anyways.

[blind2d]

Exactly. Maybe a bite of that size could be survived, but... I wouldn't count on it. Great point to bring up, SRP.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I don't think the arm bite would have been minor or survivable, I think Romero showing his calf being torn away was the nail in the coffin and to add more shock value to the events transpiring. Showing Rogers decay from healthy to pretty much dead while somewhat coherent was to help drive home the tension and fear of the moment. I think it is a very intense moment, shocking and emotionally driven moment for the film.

[Trin]

He's a goner from the arm. Peter - "I've seen a half dozen guys get bitten by those things. None of them lasted more than 36 hours." But, really, Land is the proof. Cholo had a smal bite. The kid at the beginning was not mortally wounded. They both knew they were goners. Slack had a small cut on her that Riley thought was from a zombie and he was ready to shoot her. The people of Land knew the smallest bite was enough.

[SRP76]

I was aware of the bites in Land, and they weren't the same. Both Cholo and "the rookie" had what I would term "major" bites. An actual chunk of flesh bitten off. Just because it was on the wrist doesn't change it. Though Land itself is wonky enough that it's not entirely consistent with the other films, anyway. The thought I have been working with is this: The dead mouths are full of funk. We all know this. But depending on the wound, you can get a couple different circumstances. In one, you've got a deep, flesh-gulping bite. What happens here is that you're actually tearing open veins and/or arteries. Can't help it; these major vessels exist, and it's tough to cut all the way to bone wthout hitting one. In this case, all those nasty bacteria are getting sent straight into blood vessels that actively circulate them. This causes all that crap to be quickly transported to all other points of the body; it gets into your lungs, your liver, your brain...makes for rapid death, and you can't do much about it. In the other, you get a "nibble". This is your regular wound you get when you, say, accidentally cut yourself while peeling potatoes. No veins or arteries are hit; you only breech capillaries. There isn't much circulation here; any crud in this wound wouldn't get moved much, so it would stay local. A lot easier to isolate and try to kill with medicines. I'm not a doctor or anything, but it would seem that this would be reasonable. I was thinking that those "Type A" wounds were untreatable, since all that crap was entrenching itself throughout the victim so rapidly. "Type B" wounds could be isolated. Roger's the only person I could think of that had a possible "Type B", so I just looked at his case. Fran even goes on to single out the leg, saying that it's getting worse, while ignoring the arm bite. Why would she name a specific wound, if all of them were showing the same signs? I know that the absence of any mention doesn't prove that the arm wasn't just as bad off, but I found it to be interesting anyway.

[sandrock74]

Fran even goes on to single out the leg, saying that it's getting worse, while ignoring the arm bite. Why would she name a specific wound, if all of them were showing the same signs? Human nature. They (and the audience) knows Roger's leg was the more massive wound. He probably didn't complain much about his arm being sore when compared to the chunk of flesh and muscle missing from his leg. Also, due to the severity of the wounds, I'm sure the leg wound was becoming infected/not healing/rotting much quicker than the arm wound. Fran was merely noting the leg, as it was the more severe injury.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Any zombie bite that ruptures the skin transfers cooties that make zombies, no ifs ands or buts.

[Yojimbo]

Leg chomp was much more violent and shocking- I agree. The arm bite, however fatal that might eventually pan out to be, was "just a flesh wound." Sorry for the misplaced holy grail reference, folks!